Re:100% renewables doesn’t equal zero-carbon energy, and the...
by godelski on Sunday May 26, 2019 @04:07PM
(#20017134)
>To answer your point 2. There isn't going to be a nuclear plant to step in anyway,
To this same point, what is? We don't live in a world of magic. We can't just plop down magical battery systems that don't even exist. Those are also 10-20 years out, from being invented, let alone built. Your argument is moot unless you provide an alternative that can be built right now. If you actually have one, I'm sure every pro-nuclear person would support it. Because our alliance isn't with nuclear, it is with the Earth.
It probably is part, but not all of the problem, people want safe reactors, that isn't cheap.
To answer your point 2. There isn't going to be a nuclear plant to step in anyway, they're such long term projects. If you plonk down a nuclear power station now, fine. But in 20 - 30 years you're going to have new nuclear power stations in a landscape that is hopefully already dominated by solar and wind, and nuclear just doesn't fit around renewables (which are cheaper when the winds blowing/suns shining) well enough to succeed.
Your point 1 is potentially good for nuclear, if it raises the usage factor. Nuclear's economics are based on running 24/7 but you can't do that with renewables.